Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war

This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

"The clear intent of this provision [Logan Act] is to prohibit unauthorized persons from intervening in disputes between the United States and foreign governments. Nothing in section 953 [Logan Act], however, would appear to restrict members of the Congress from engaging in discussions with foreign officials in pursuance of their legislative duties under the Constitution. In the case of Senators McGovern and Sparkman the executive branch, although it did not in any way encourage the Senators to go to Cuba , was fully informed of the nature and purpose of their visit, and had validated their passports for travel to that country."

The circumstances of Speaker Pelosi's trip to Syria were similar. The Bush administration was well aware of the "nature and purpose" of the proposed trip, and while President Bush discouraged it and is now harshly criticizing it, the executive branch took no action to prevent Pelosi from leaving the country. Indeed, the White House has not mentioned the Logan Act in relationship to Pelosi's trip.

Some other Americans accused of, but never prosecuted for violating the Logan Act include Ross Perot for his efforts to locate U.S. POWs in Southeast Asia and former Speaker of the House Jim Wright for his relations with the Sandinista government. In 1984, Reverend Jessie Jackson's trips to Syria, Cuba and Nicaragua drew accusations of Logan Act violations from President Reagan. And who can forget Jane Fonda's many controversial trips to Southeast Asia in protest of the Vietnam War? Yet, as far as the Congressional Research Service has been able to determine, no American has ever been prosecuted under the Logan Act.

In medicine we say a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing. Too many on your side are easily swayed by venomous pndents because they know just enough to get it completely wrong. You may well disagree with her actions, and with good reason, but that doesn't mean she broke any law.

Pelosi not only didn't have the authority to negotiatte foriegn policy, but she was negotiating policy that was contrary to the existing official foreign policy of the United States.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Nonsense, pure and simple. Pelosi sent Lantos, and Slaughter to meet with the PKK. An insider tells of the plan here.

Tom Lantos and Louise Slaughter democrat from New York who had the actual meeting with Haji Amadi, the leader of the PJAK, which is an arm of the PKK who were tasked with handling the battle within Iraq, and other PKK and KCK officers. He said that one PKK officer Marrett Kereillin(sp) has even bragged on this and other meetings in interviews in English and Arabic and Farci language publications. This is all the source could and likely will say...He feels if we continue to talk about it the story could break in the national media...the possibility of some Kurd or even a PKK member or a sister terrorist organization might be willing to discuss what they know or one of the intelligent sources, French, US, Israeli, Iraqi, who already are aware of the meeting will finally see the need to leak it...or even a democratic staffer will come forward with the facts... If this is true we have a bunch of people in the congress of the United States who have committed treason...

Nonsense, pure and simple. Pelosi sent Lantos, and Slaughter to meet with the PKK. An insider tells of the plan here.

j-mac

Once again j, you present mindless opinion as if it were fact. There were no charges and it wasn't what you claim. But you demonstrat how easy it is to lead those willing to suspend disblief in order to support a partisan view. Congrats.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Pelosi not only didn't have the authority to negotiatte foriegn policy, but she was negotiating policy that was contrary to the existing official foreign policy of the United States.

Again, you're ignoring the rebuttal, and the fact she was not charged in any way.

AUSTAN GOOLSBEE:I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Military leaders and President Obama’s civilian advisers are girding for battle over the size and pace of the planned pullout of U.S. troops from Afghanistan this summer, with the military seeking to limit a reduction in combat forces and the White House pressing for a withdrawal substantial enough to placate a war-weary electorate.

At a meeting of his war cabinet this month, "the president made it clear that he wants a meaningful drawdown to start in July,” said one of the officials, who, like the others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to share internal discussions.

The divergent views about the withdrawal illustrate the unresolved tensions between Obama’s military and civilian advisers over the decision to send more troops to Afghanistan in a last-ditch attempt to salvage a failing war. Although military officials contend that the surge has enabled U.S. forces to blunt the Taliban in key areas over the past several months, White House officials remain skeptical that those gains will survive without the presence of American troops and without U.S. financial aid.

Complicating the debate is growing concern in Washington about the war’s cost, which is estimated to reach $120 billion this year, and polls that show increasing disenchantment, even among Republicans, with a mission that has turned into a complicated nation-building endeavor.

As both sides prepare for what they expect to be a vigorous debate, they are seeking ways to achieve their favored outcome by limiting what the other can do. For the military, that means crafting a narrow set of choices, because there is general agreement that reduction numbers need to originate in the field.

Two senior military officials said one set of options being developed by staff officers in Kabul involves three choices: the removal of almost no forces; the withdrawal of a few thousand support personnel, including headquarters staff, engineers and logisticians; and the pullout of a brigade’s worth of troops — about 5,000 personnel— by culling a battalion of Marines in Helmand province that was added after the surge, a contingent of soldiers training Afghan security forces and an Army infantry battalion in either the country’s east or far west.